What is the most liberal food?

Even Veeky Forums is a cesspool for /pol/acks.

And you're a cesspool of AIDS.

Foods shaped like dicks
youtube.com/watch?v=xte_NjXsjIw

...

Tobasco hasn't been in MREs for a few years.

Was it replaced? Or do you you have to supply your own?

Saw one with Frank's a while ago.
Not sure if that's standard now, but that's the last hot sauce I saw in an MRE

Quinoa.

Starbucks

I like it. It's also a nice sandwich condiment or hot chip dip when mixed with mayo.

why is Soylent the most shilliest shill?

Not true, they're now saying that eating quinoa is symptomatic of white privilege and cultural appropriation.

...

...

This right here is why millennials can't afford hosues

false, texas pete, tapatio, and crystal are all better hot sauces.

Pretending to like garbage overpriced artificial food resembling meat.

Why do so many people love sriracha so much anyways? This stuff that's made by the same company as most sriracha on the market is infinitely better.

>The Virgin .125 oz Tabasco
>The Chad 12 oz Tabasco

I would unironically devour this

>texas pete
>muh thickening agents
Man, Texas Pete isn't really that bad but I want my fucking Tabasco back at Chick-fi-A. Nobody has been able to even tell me why they stopped stocking it and I feel like a tool for using my own personal bottle at a fast food place.

/pol/acks can't live off tendies libfag

Yeah only /pol/ finds you annoying, I'm sure love.

...

replace "nigger" with "liberals"

Tabasco is literally the worst hot sauce I have ever tasted.
It's not spicy, it's not tasty, it just tastes like vinegar mixed with cayenne pepper.

the only good thing you can do with weeb sauce is mix it with mayo.

I've seen people carry little bottles of that shit on keychains. They use it at restaurant directly on what they've been served. Truly the choice of the worst soyboys

...

Requesting that pic of the guy who went crazy after drinking this shit for years

organic all natural GMO/MSG/Vaccine free kale

Goat cheese maybe? anything that's slightly challenging is gonna be more eaten by liberals

I think it looks good on the box, but I know the real thing is going to look like shit irl, which is why I can't find any pictures of the actual product on Google, only stock photos

thats just a young/old person dichotomy, old people tend to be less adventurous in food and tend to be more conservative since they pay more taxes

...

Tobasco is S H I T

How you retards even like this is beyond me. It is not spicy unless you have the palate of an infant child and it ruins the taste of good food. fuck tobasco.

>liberal food

Oh my fuckin God the right is dying

>It's a no one can spell Tabasco despite there being a photo with 4 bottles in it episode

both sides are dying and we ended up with Trump vs Bernie, two populists assholes without the ability of rational thought

The most controversial policy position Sanders had in his platform was subsidized higher education, which would have cost something like 5% of the deficit that the GOP's handlers just created in their train wreck of a tax bill

But hey, both sides are equally irrational right?

calling himself the oxymoronic term "democratic socialist" was a good start

>was subsidized higher education'
Literally just bribing young people to vote for him, higher education is already highly subsidized, and in fact there is a strong correlation between the increase of college costs and the federal subsidization of student loans

This pissed me off the most because I was responsible and actually paid off my loans by living cheaply after college and majoring in something useful, while a bunch of english and art majors rack up 5 years of debt then work as a barrista and spend all of their money living in an expensive neighborhood, then whine about the whole situation and say tax payers should pay off their decisions

Sure, up until after the election where he started going full retard in debates because he didn't have to pretend anymore. After that all the moderate would-be Bernie voters realized how much of a bullet they dodged. He's full fucking pinko and would have gotten away with his carefully controlled campaign image if Hillary wasn't so obsessed with it being "her turn"

enjoy your chili flavoured vinegar, pleb

>oxymoronic term "democratic socialist"
Your poor understanding of words reflects on you, not the words. "Socialism" doesn't automatically mean the USSR any more than "liberal" means anarcho-capitalism.

>Literally just bribing young people to vote for him
As opposed to bribing old people to vote for you? Bribing dark money pools to pay for your campaigns? Horse trading is how the system works, user. "Young people" is a more legitimate demographic than "three billionaires".

This may come as a shock but "young people" are eventually going to become "middle aged people" and later "old people", some of us (including me, a middle aged man) think it's probably a good idea to encourage young people to go to school instead of praying that their bitcoin stash will be enough to pay for their retirement.

>higher education is already highly subsidized, and in fact there is a strong correlation between the increase of college costs and the federal subsidization of student loans
That's why I called it "controversial". Reasonable people can disagree on whether (and how) to subsidize higher education. Literally nobody believes that gutting established universities and handing out massive tax breaks to Miss Betsy's Diploma Mill would be good for this country. And yet...

>This pissed me off the most because I was responsible
Yes, of course. You're responsible and everyone else is irresponsible. If only everyone had majored in exactly what you majored in and gone into the same industry, surely you'd have the same job at the same salary as you do now!

Anyone who legitimately worries about "the pinkos" in this day and age is mentally ill.

We didn't end with trump vs bernie, then we'd have bernie as a president, 100% guaranteed.
We ended with hillary vs trump

Do you ever give it a rest?

Socialism is inherently statism at the expense of liberal democracy

I mean in the aftermath of Trump winning, not during the last election.
Now we have both sides of the debate being lead by terrible big government populists

You mean like the left still wringing their hands over muh Russian collusion?
I almost want Trump to get impeached for that crock of shit. They think it's going to magically get Hillary in, when they're going to be stuck with President Pence instead. The tears would be glorious.

>liberal democracy is an oxymoron, democracy implies government and government is at odds with the free market
I can use hyperbole too, user

Because it's just ketchup for big kids.

>As opposed to bribing old people to vote for you
Or maybe do neither?
>It's probably a good idea to encourage young people
We already do this. We don't need to hand us money to do something we already do
>Yes, of course. You're responsible and everyone else is irresponsible
Yeah, if you can't pay off student loans in a reasonable amount of time and need the federal government to bail you out, you are by definition irresponsible, and people who live within their means and pay off their loans in a timely manner are responsible.

Also, there are a very wide range of educational choices that will result in decent earning potential. Gender Studies or literature, don't try and make it seem as though picking a useful major is this obscure and esoteric mystery

The same reason people like ketchup. It's just a masking agent.

>They think it's going to magically get Hillary in
Nobody thinks that, bucko. Pence isn't any democrat's idea of an ideal president but at this point a lot of people would rather see a jerk in charge of the launch codes than a mentally unstable retard who thinks nuclear standoffs ought to be handled as an internet argument.

except this is literally false, unlike the thing you are responding to

>implying that Pence isn't also going down with that ship
get some better material, Boris

how is bernie a populist in the same vein as trump? bernie has actually used most of his life as a politician

>how is bernie a populist in the same vein as trump
Because they say irrational and poorly thought out things to get people with a poor grasp on politics and economics to support them

They have a different target group, old people vs young people but they are both just populists that have no business ever being seriously discussed and are both utter embarrassments to democracy in general

The current system of subsidized loans obviously has its problems, reasonable people can disagree on how best to fix that. The point is the worst concrete point you can come up with (keeping in mind "waah I don't understand the meaning of the word socialism" is not a concrete point) is that, arguably, he would have cost the federal budget a few billion on a program that may or may not result in a better educated millennial generation.

On the other hand, surely no sane person would try and argue that adding trillions to the deficit, after campaigning on deficit reduction, and with no real rationale in mind other than "well, I bet this would be a good idea and if it doesn't we added a trigger to suddenly claw back those tax cuts when it inevitably doesn't do what we're not even pretending is going to work" is coherent, let alone constructive.

Therefore, "both sides are equally irrational" is wrong, one side is demonstrably several trillion dollars less rational.

No u

It's completely up in the air at the least because, assuming Russia did somehow influence the election by a considerable margin, there's no precedent for something like that happening. Nobody would know what the fuck to do about it. It would all have to be hashed out in courts and it would take literal YEARS.
If you're thinking the stroke of a pen will remove Trump, his entire administration, and revert any changes he's made while simultaneously handing the rest of his term, or even another term to Hillary, you're out of your fucking mind.

>Therefore, "both sides are equally irrational" is wrong, one side is demonstrably several trillion dollars less rational.
Thank you. The false equivalency needs to stop. Repubs are voting against net neutrality, for making healthcare unattainable for poor people, and for huge trillions worth of tax cuts to the rich while making the poor and middle class continue to pay for a government that now only serves corporations. Fuck anyone stupid enough to believe the Republicans aren't the worst choice when voting and double fuck anyone who punched the ticket for any fucking incumbent. People who vote incumbent are the enemies of America.

>literally just red dyed vinegar

Gross.

>On the other hand, surely no sane person would try and argue that adding trillions to the deficit, after campaigning on deficit reduction, and with no real rationale in mind other than "well, I bet this would be a good idea and if it doesn't we added a trigger to suddenly claw back those tax cuts when it inevitably doesn't do what we're not even pretending is going to work" is coherent, let alone constructive.
Yeah, I never suggested any of this was good

>Therefore, "both sides are equally irrational" is wrong
Both sides do not need to be equally irrational to both be bad. I am not defending Trump in any way, and not saying he is better than Bernie. Just saying Bernie is pretty shitty too, and the coalescence of Anti-trump liberals to his specific brand of backwards populism is disheartening for anyone who wants to see rational government after the Trump era

>The false equivalency needs to stop. Repubs are voting against net neutrality
Actually they aren't voting on it at all. You can thank Obama/Bush and their vast expansion of executive power to allow this stuff to just change on the whims of the president without any legislation

If Obama hadn't set the current standard of net neutrality through executive action and had in fact used congress as legislation is designed to be made Trump wouldn't be able to so easily turn it back (as he has basically done nothing with congress so far)

>and for huge trillions worth of tax cuts to the rich while making the poor and middle class continue to pay for a government that now only serves corporations
This is misleading, the government does not own our money, and the government taking less of our money is not the same thing as a handout (not to imply the current plan sounds like a good idea, just that you are phrasing your opposition in a shitty and misleading way)
Also should be noted that it is still overwhelmingly upper middle class, rich people and corporations funding the government. This bill is bad because the deficit is a huge problem (that democrats conveniently never gave a shit about under Obama or until a couple weeks ago for the most part), but to say it puts the burden of funding government on poor people is false, poor people still do not pay a significant amount of taxes

>and had in fact used congress as legislation is designed to be made Trump wouldn't be able to so easily turn it back (as he has basically done nothing with congress so far)
And how Obama supposed to do this with 6 years of Republican majority government that wouldn't even pass a budget?

>Obama hadn't set the current standard of net neutrality through executive action
Obama had no other option, shit brain. The Republican congress was, and still is, the problem.

maybe the 2 years when he controlled everything?
Or maybe the executive shouldn't be allowed to change things if he doesn't have the support of congress? Pretty sure thats how the system is supposed to work, specifically to avoid wild swings in policy as the executive changes

The pathetic thing is that Obama's agenda was pretty much center-right, but the GOP screeched bloody murder at everything he did because "nigger president"

8 years of people yelling that center-right platforms are "leftist extremism" and here we are today where 2+2 = 10 and "life begins at conception" is fiscal policy

>The pathetic thing is that Obama's agenda was pretty much center-right
This is an absurd analysis unless you are counting straight up soviet communism to be the legitimate left. The American government under Obama was as far to the left as it has ever been, thats how our government works, it always slowly moves to the left and that will lurch to the right briefly before heading back to the left (to the point where actual classic enlightened liberalism is now considered extreme conservatism in the form of libertarianism)

Calling Obama center-right has absolutely no basis in America history or politics

>Pretty sure thats how the system is supposed to work
Pretty sure the system is suppose to be by, of, and for the people. But Republican policy represents a minority of racist shit headed Americans and the corporations that fox news tells them to support.

It's actually pretty good on pizza, if you ask me. I wouldn't readily put it on Asian food though.

For a board about cooking, you sure are being political.

It's vinegar-y. I have literally broken tastebuds. So I love it for its pungency.

I liked it before my accident too though.

Massive expansion of the "domestic security" apparatus, multi billion dollar handouts to corporations, perpetual warfare, mass deportations... yeah what a pinko!

>Pretty sure the system is suppose to be by, of, and for the people
yeah, and the legislature is elected by those people, thats what a republic is

>But Republican policy represents a minority of racist shit headed Americans
Thats what Trump is, but he is hardly a republican as noted by all the republican establishment hating him. To call actual republicans simply racists is fucking dumb and makes you sound petty

and corporations aren't inherently bad, they are business owned by people, and run by people and that employ many people. its bad for all of America if we try and "fight" corporations, forcing more business overseas is bad for all of us

yeah, big government programs are leftism

"Corporations" are no more or less good than individuals, the reason they can threaten democracy is that some of them have a disproportionate influence on the democratic process and have a tendency to push for stuff that works for them, at the expense of their competition. Few individuals have the ability to get politicians to write laws that tilt the economic landscape in their favor, and those who do are just as deserving as being fought against as a company that wants to abolish the EPA or outlaw home brewing.

When you have monopolies and regulatory capture you lose the benefits of true capitalism. So yes, fighting the rise of a corporate oligarchy is, in fact, good for all of us.

Only when Republicans don't like them

>the reason they can threaten democracy is that some of them have a disproportionate influence on the democratic process and have a tendency to push for stuff that works for them,
This only works with big government leftism. A government should not have the right to pick and choose what businesses or industries to support
>When you have monopolies
Monopolies are almost always the result of government intervention, not the inverse

no, in every case. You either support the left which is increased statism, or you don't. Don't let the media convince you that the right really just means racism and Trump. he has nothing to do with being conservative

>"When I do it, it's freedom, when the other guy does it it's Big Gubmint"
Typical Republican hypocrisy

Jesus Christ man, I have pretty explicitly stated that it is bad in all cases, stop trying to say I support republicans when they move to the left with big government policies

>Support welfare or support corporate welfare
Tough call, get back to me after republican states stop offering billion dollar investment deals to companies that deign to build in their shitholes

The idea that people in the government should not have ever worked for a non-government entity is pretty dumb
You cannot staff you government with experts in the field without employing people with ties to the actual field, nor should you try

Also, almost the entire corporate world supported Hillary, her cabinet would have been just as tied into the corporations she was picking to support.
Trump has a shitty cabinet, but thats mostly because no one who is good at things wants to be associated with him at all, not because of some vague evil corporate ties

>Monopolies are almost always the result of government intervention, not the inverse
How fucking stupid can shit brained republicucks get? Everyday I witness a while new level of mental fucking retardation. Yall.. Stop feeding the trolls.

Not stealing as much of an individual or business's money is not welfare

Remember, taxation is inherently theft, and every dollar taken or spent by the government should be considered as though it is being taken by armed force from whatever source it is coming

Thank you.